In addition, if C is defined and its definition satisfies the conditions for an aggregate class ([dcl.init.aggr]) with the assumption that any dependent base class has no virtual functions and no virtual base classes, and the initializer is a non-empty braced-init-list or parenthesized expression-list, and there are no deduction-guides for C, the set contains an additional function template, called the aggregate deduction candidate, defined as follows. Let X₁,...,X_N be the elements of the initializer-list or designated-initializer-list of the braced-init-list, or of the expression-list. For each X_i, let e_i be the corresponding aggregate element of C or of one of its (possibly recursive) subaggregates that would be initialized by X_i if

• [1.5] brace elision is not considered for any aggregate element that has a dependent non-array type or an array type with a value-dependent bound, and
• [1.6] each non-trailing aggregate element that is a pack expansion is assumed to correspond to no elements of the initializer list, and
• [1.7] a trailing aggregate element that is a pack expansion is assumed to correspond to all remaining elements of the initializer list (if any).

If there is no such aggregate element e_i for any X_i, the aggregate deduction candidate is not added to the set. The aggregate deduction candidate is derived as above from a hypothetical constructor C(T₁,...,T_n)

• if e_i is of array type and x_i is a braced-init-list or string-literal, T_i is an rvalue reference to the declared type of e_i
• otherwise, T_i is the declared type of e_i

According to the expound in P2082R1 and the following example, the actual intent seems to be that:
e_i is the corresponding aggregate element of C if the aggregate element is a dependent non-array type or an array type with a value-dependent bound. Instead, e_i is the corresponding aggregate element of one of C's subaggregates if the brace elision can be considered(i.e, the inverse cases of what the previous sentence says). However, the current appearance of the structure of "if..." seems to have a reverse meaning. Specifically, the rule probably can be read as that

let e_i be the corresponding aggregate element of C,
or the corresponding aggregate element one of its (possibly recursive) subaggregates that would be initialized by X_i if

• [1.5] brace elision is not considered for any aggregate element that has a dependent non-array type or an array type with a value-dependent bound
  [...]

See this example

template<typename T>
struct Test{
    T t[2];
};
int main(){
  Test t{{1,2}};
}

According to the diagnosis of GCC, the candidate set comprises template<class T> Test(T, T)-> Test<T>. The obscure structure can result in this issue.

Issue 2:
Notice the bullet [1.6] and [1.7] in the above rule. It appears to me these bullets should be statements(general rules for aggregate CTAD), why are they placed after the if condition?